It’s remarkable how varied soccer teams’ attitudes towards possession are. Obviously, no team is more deeply committed to possession in all situations than Barcelona, even though that commitment can cost them, as it did in the recent Clasíco, when Real was 
handed their early goal via an uncharacteristically dumb and easily-intercepted pass from Víctor Valdés. But an occasional error is not going to change the Barça belief that hoofing the ball down the pitch is simply not done, even by the keeper, and even 30 seconds into the match. So after the match Pep Guardiola said, “The perfect image of this game was that after the goal Víctor Valdés continued playing the ball. Real Madrid steam-roller you. Most goalkeepers would boot it. But Víctor kept playing the ball. I prefer us to lose the ball like that but give continuity to our play.” And Xavi added, “The key was not forgetting our philosophy. We don’t know how to play any other way — and Victor was brave.”
About eighteen hours later, I saw quite another tactic employed: in the last half-hour of their match with Sunderland, Blackburn made no attempt to possess the ball. At all. Steve Kean just backed his players against their goal and let Sunderland hammer away, rope-a-dope like. But unfortunately for the Rovers, Sunderland didn’t punch themselves out. They got two goals in the last ten minutes and handed Martin O’Neill his first win with the team.
Kean may have cost his team the game by foregoing possession so completely, but it’s perfectly reasonable tactics to eschew a possession-based game: you can’t keep the ball just by wanting to — there are people on the pitch trying to take it away from you — so if you’re going to hang on to it, you need players who (a) have excellent on-ball skills, (b) have good positional awareness, including awareness of the likely locations of teammates and opponents alike, (c) trust that their teammates will do the right thing when the ball comes to them, and (d) aren’t easily excitable. And above all you need to have players with these virtues all over the pitch. The Barça style works only because the back four are as comfortable with the ball at their feet as other teams’ attacking midfielders. (The problem with defending against Barça is that their other players are even better with the ball, so a high-pressing game is probably the opponents’ best option, if their forwards have the stamina to keep it up for any length of time, which is very rare, so basically when you play Barça you’re screwed . . . but we all know that already. So anyway.)
The beauty of Barcelona’s style has everyone starry-eyed these days: Martin O’Neill says he wants Sunderland to play that way. Sounds great, Martin: all you have to do is to set up a world-class football academy, sign promising players when they’re about eight years old, fend off all attempts to steal them away from Wearside, and when they’re fully mature promote them to the first team. By the time you’re 75 it’ll all be in place! All you’ll need then is to play every match against sides managed by Steve Kean.
I’ve written about some of these matters before, but I think I’m getting a clearer picture of what the game of soccer needs. Not more managers who want to play like Barcelona, but a new generation of tacticians who put seriously creative thought into creating an opportunistic, counter-attacking, possession-indifferent style that can be taught to players who haven’t spent fifteen years together and who may not have the skills necessary to play keep-away for ninety minutes. Players in such a system would need, above all, the persistent alertness to look for opportunities to disrupt possession, the patience to wait for those moments without becoming distracted or over-aggressive, and the boldness to take immediate advantage of any lapse. Rare enough virtues, I suppose; but they can be taught, and can be taught to players who lack intimate understanding of their teammates — as will usually be the case in the ever-shifting world of modern professional sports.
We still don’t know whether the Barcelona model will be sustainable in the long run even by Barcelona — though for at least the medium run the future looks pretty damned bright, considering the way the kiddies played against BATE in their recent Champions League match. Barça’s opponents have to hope that the team has more financial troubles than its bosses have been willing to admit. But in any case, it would be foolish to think that this model can be implemented anywhere else; owners and managers should simply put the thought from their minds, and along with it a tactical approach based fundamentally on possessing the ball. In this one case tactics are tied closely to a system that can’t be replicated. It’s time for everyone else to think different — to coin a phrase — and that means, above all, to think about how to play well, how to be dangerous, when you don’t have the ball all the time.
by Alan Jacobs · December 14, 2011
Good to see Brian’s artwork here adding to the Plausible-Seeming but Tonally Inappropriate Book Covers series.
Enjoyed reading this…very consistent.
Would you say it was…remarkably consistent?
After reading it again, I have come to the conclusion that yes, it is remarkable in its consistency.
@Brian Phillips @Drew Now I just need someone to show up and say that my essay is consistently remarkable.
After reading this, am much obliged to offer a compliment; what an excitedly consistent article!
So much for my hopes to generate a dynamic conversation about the future of soccer tactics. . . .
Napoli seem like a good expierment in the type of counter-attacking team you’re describing.
Alan – I’m working on a more substantive post in response to this, but an initial thought: Is it possible to borrow aspects of Barcelona’s style without creating a carbon copy? I have to think that’s more what O’Neill had in mind when he said those admittedly-absurd words last week. (With stuff like that coming out of his mouth I almost suspect he’s more suited to the Blackburn job…)
Part of my issue with the post is that I just am not as much of a believer in the opportunistic, counter-attacking philosophy. Yes, it can be effective and has won many trophies. But if a team’s primary mode of attack is the counter-attack, they’re a team well-positioned to compete with peers and struggle mightily against their inferiors. Really, that was Spurs’ problem last season: On the counter-attack, there was none better. That’s how we nearly beat United at WHL, nearly beat City at WHL, managed strong performances against Chelsea, took 4 of 6 from Arsenal and did the double against Liverpool. (Only United had a better record than us against top 6 sides.) But when we met a team clearly-inferior to us that would just park the bus, we didn’t have a plan b for breaking them down.
Really, I think the reason this season’s Spurs are so superior to last is that we have managed to imitate aspects of Barca’s game: notably the one-touch passing and using a deep-lying playmaker and clever wing play to create space in the hole for an advanced creative type. Adebayor and VDV have both dropped deep this year to receive the ball and have created some great goals by doing so – and the space they use is available because of the work of Modric, Bale and Lennon.
I don’t completely disagree with what you’re saying, but I do think it’s possible to borrow elements from Barca in assembling a squad. (Of course, you could easily argue that if you’re borrowing pressing, you’re just copying some of the Russian sides from the 70s and 80s and if you’re borrowing short-passing and possession, you’re just copying the Total Footballing sides of the 60s and 70s. Maybe the only way to “imitate Barca” is to copy the entire system, which, obviously, no one else in the world will be able to do.)
@Jake Meador – That reminds me of Dunga’s Brazil. Great counter attacking team, but where was plan B?
Nice article. I always find it humorous when a manager or supporter of a club other than Barcelona declares that his club needs to adopt the style of the Blaugrana. What he doesn’t realize, of course, is that Barcelona plays tiki-taka because (1) it understands itself better than any other club and (2) it stays truer to itself better than any other club.
Barcelona understands its resources – that it tends to produce highly skillful albeit diminutive players, which best lends to a short-passing, possession based style of play.
If Sunderland were to adopt this style, it would likely get even worse results than it already does (however implausible that may seem).
But, perhaps there is an undiscovered style of play that Sunderland could adopt that would produce better results for its athletically-gifted players. And, perhaps if the Black Cats adopted and consistently deployed this previously undiscovered style of play over the next 15 years, they could perfect it and become a dominant squad in world football.
I can hear you all laughing, by the way. But it’s true.
Currently, Barcelona’s style of play dominates world football.
But it’s not the end of the road. The game will continue to evolve.
http://thesecondball.blogspot.com/
@Brian Phillips I don’t have a twitter anymore, so here’s a submission for your “Creatures of La Masia” Series:
http://www.zooborns.com/.a/6a010535647bf3970b0133ed7933cc970b-800wi
@Miguel *to
@Jake Meador Agree – the coming tactical innovation, with less need for possession, will not be about counters, but about how to maximize use of less possession (easier options/less requirement for intuitive sense of teammates) while being proactive in using patterns of possession to rest and recover, not only to attack. Countering is not possession-neutral, it prefers to cede possession for space to attack into, and so it lacks a plan B when a team does not over-extend in attacking.
Upset by lack of steampunk Barça but mostly consoled by collie taking pics selca style ala Korean uljjangs, complete with bizarre photoshopping of eyes. Maybe.
@Jae Young The dog’s eyes have not been Photoshopped.
@David Seems like an oddly narrow definition of counter-attacking. All teams counter-attack, some more often, some less. You seem to be talking about a full-scale strategy of never attacking except on the counter, but that would be an extreme case. What I was imagining was not a possession-shunning but a possession-indifferent style — a team that’s happy to have the ball but doesn’t build its whole plan around having to have the ball. If you know what I mean.
You’re right about Barca, but you’re wrong about some yet discovered tactic allowing teams with less understanding of each other and poorer skills beating teams like Barcalona. They have put the work in. Their real asset is not the possession tactics, it is the system. You can’t cheat that with x’s and o’s. The lesson we should take from them is not that they discovered a better way to play but that they have done the the obvious (!) better than any one else ever has. They’ve focused not on doing better things, they’ve focused on doing things better.
Great article and good replies from the comments section.
However, most teams don’t face Barça often enough so that they absolutely need to develop an answer to Barcelona’s steamroller brand of possession football. Internationally, everyone’s gunning for Spain, but time might dismantle that team before anyone comes up with an answer.
So what you’re saying is: other clubs should stop trying to copy Barca’s philosophy simply because that approach would take a long time to implement? Or is this “possession-indifferent” style merely a short-term fix for the first team while youth academies start their own 15-20 year La Masia?
PS. Just curious, have you ever done any coaching at all?
“Possession? That doesn’t appear to be in the gameplan at all. What are these guys talking about?”
—– Every manager of the US Men’s National Team.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpU57jJnRuQ
Mourinho’s Inter side forewent possession over a two legged semi-final against Barcelona and, yet, managed to beat them; progressing to the final of the Champions League that year. They did so by making sure that the little possession that they had (33% in the first leg at the San Siro) was treated more preciously and efficiently than the possession they allowed Barcelona to have (If one can use such a term). In possession they were ruthlessly direct without losing the integrity of their shape while, without it they understood where their defensive lines were drawn and lived by them like a sniper in a ditch. Barcelona themselves have a tendency to rush the ball in numbers should any opposition player get hold of it; in a style as equally frenzied as they are cool when in possession. This passion for the ball, actualised by both the love and care given to it and the terrorising hunt to regain it are what we know and love about this Barca side. It also, however,can be its’ downfall. Mourinho set his team up to take advantage of this tilt from the calm to the manic by taking any setpiece (especially throw-ins) as fast as they could, benefitting from the displacement of the Barcelona players after they had pressed the ball in numbers. The throw in would go over the heads of the two players who had conceded it leaving Inter with a key, if not very brief, numerical advantage. The result was a 3-1 first leg win, with Wesley Sneijder’s equalizing goal showing the magnetic effect the ball had and has on the Barcelona players.
Possession is a romantic thing in football and football is a romantic game. We all smile and get fuzzy watching Xavi and Iniesta throw the ball back and forth like flirtfull glances; but in football the truly important moments are often when the ball is alone and the empty panic sets in, and it is usually the more poised suitor who steps in and sweeps us off our feet.
@Alan Jacobs Jogi Löw’s Germany seems to me a perfect, and incredibly satisfying, version of this possession-indifferent utopian set-up. IIRC, during the WC run, the focus was almost exclusively on their dangerous, efficient counter-attacking — but the friendly against Holland recently really showed how capable and fluid they are both on the break AND in possession.
I still grin like a doofus when I think of how masterful the performance was — and how fun it was to watch! Sometimes even when Barca is at their best, there can be chunky lulls — little triangular naps. But in that GER-NED friendly, the potential energy was CONSTANT. So thrilling.
Great piece, btw.
@J.M. Chambers Your analysis of the Inter/Barca semifinal is beautifully written but you only told half the story. I’d agree that something like what you describe as Mourinho’s tactics played out in the first match, but not in the 2nd leg, where Barca would have gone through on away goals had the referee (rightly) allowed Bojan’s injury time goal. Additionally, Inter had only one shot (and that off target) compared to Barcelona’s twenty, so… (But to be fair, Inter were down to 10 men, which poses a problem for any real tactical analysis.)
I’d also make the point that Mourinho re-tried these tactics (albeit with slight variations) thrice last season with Madrid in the Clasicos, and they only paid off once. Sure, it might work every so often when the stars are aligned correctly and the footballing gods are in some drunken stupor, but I’d wager Barca’s frenzied hunt beats Inter’s possession-rationing and quick free kicks more times than not.
Not sure I fully get your point about the “poised suitor,” but it sounds nice.
Napoli did this against Man city-allowed them the ball and counter attacked them with so much pace and precision!!
@Alex Couldn’t agree more about the Germans. They always seem to be saying to their opponents, “Go ahead, keep the ball — but you had better not make a mistake.“
@andy You guys are convincing me that I need to watch more Napoli. I think I’ve only seen them once this year, and I mainly remember Cavani being exceptionally dangerous.
@Bill Haydon Firstly, thank you for the compliment on the writing style; it genuinely means a lot. I don’t submit to things such as this (or indeed anything in writing) often and so positive feedback is very reassuring!
As far as the football goes (or went) I can’t accept that I only told half the story, insofar as the only story I set out to tell was that of the first leg at the San Siro. The tactical story of the second match would go, as you rightly wrote, quite differently; as does every football match. Managers may have styles and philosophies but the best ones always seem to treat “the game”, game by game and Mr Mourinho is certainly as fine an example of this as any. The story of the second match, however, must begin with the scoreline of the first; which left the aforementioned special one with the opportunity to “park the bus”, as the parlance goes and, more pertinent to our article, truly disregard possession; seeing how this time he didn’t actually require any. The 3-1 advantage meant this was a compellingly different match to prepare and plan for than the first and so not really the same system that my original comment referred to. In that match, however, Inter were, in terms of possession, even more overpowered. They did not have the ball and they may not have really wanted it. Once again, but in a very different way from the first leg, they sacrificed possession for shape and control. By the time the red card came the combination of history and circumstance left them with few real options. They played with a disdain for possession. Inter’s one shot on goal was not something they would have been scrutinizing on the flight home.
Just to bring us back, the crux of the original article and my original reply or comment was something to do with Mr Jacobs saying the game needed,
“a new generation of tacticians who put seriously creative thought into creating an opportunistic, counter-attacking, possession-indifferent style that can be taught to players who haven’t spent fifteen years together and who may not have the skills necessary to play keep-away for ninety minutes”.
My point was simply to show, by telling the story of one particular game, that, drunken football Gods or not, there were coaches and managers who were trying to devise said system and be that tactician and that it could work.
Finally, (phew, sorry) the “poised suitor” analogy was just an extension of the “flirty glance” metaphor used about Xavi and Iniesta’s ability together. Sweeping off feet as victory? I dunno, obviously didn’t work that well though did it?! Hey ho.
Cheers Mr Heydon.
John.
The mistake people make is to judge by the results and not the process. Barca’s tactics aren’t good because they win, Barca wins because their tactics and players and teamwork is good.
Barcelona itself is not a philosophical “unicum”. Yes, its tiki-taka style may be a tailor-made for their hispanic/baroque/bullfighting delicacies, but it also follows the footsteps of several generations of possession play and total football believers. The timeline could be: Ajax, Feyenoord and Holland national team in the 60s and early 70s; Michels’ Barcelona for the rest of the 70s; Lobanovski’s Dynamo Kiev and Sacchi’s AC Milan in 80s; Cruijff’s “dream team” Barca in 90s; Wenger’s Arsenal and Rykaard’s blaugrana iteration in the Aughts. With all the differences, they shared a lot in terms of play and mentality.
And they all were extremely successful teams in their own way: winners of many leagues and a handful of cups. Logically, they spawned also many notable emulators along the road, even in counter-attacking promise lands like Italy: I’m thinking the “dutch” Napoli of the 70s, or the madcap italian teams managed by Zdenek Zeman since the 80s (Foggia, SS Lazio, As Roma, etc.).
Today they’re trying to implant a tiki-taka colony right in the center of the anti-possession empire – italian “Serie A “-, with the really interesting experiment of Luis Enrique’s AS Roma (take one former manager of Barcelona B team – and former Camp Nou idol – and then add Bojan Krkic and some amazingly gifted young players…). For the records: it begun catastrophically, but now Luis Enrique’s team is doing really well, and roman supporters are showing a lot of enthusiasm.
Sure, there are many different, and potentially effective, styles of play in football. But maybe – just maybe – the possession driven, esthetically surcharged and ever-attacking dutch/catalan tendency is here to stay.
Swansea have based their play on Barcelona and look at the wonders it’s done for them. For the personell they have in the squad they really have done well to get where they are. They ‘out-possessed’ Arsenal at the weekend – no mean feat given Wenger likes to keep the ball too…
Obviously your never going to have the ‘ball all the time’ – that’s the whole point. On the ball Swansea play ball to feet around the back and then up the pitch like Barca and when they lose it it’s high pressure on the ball, just like Barca.
This is an extremely good adaptation of Barcelona-like tactics from a side whose entire value is probably a 1/8 of Lionel Messi’s.
The assumption that counter attacking soccer will win more often than a newly embraced possession approach is incorrect.
@Adam Exactly – it’s horses for courses so to speak. It’s just not this simple. On the basis that counter-attacking is the way forward, it would be like watching NBA – back and fourth, end-to-end. There’s just not enough quality players with an abundance of pace around for everyone to facilitate a counter-attacking style.
Off the ball it’s very much about organisation, especially with the speed of the game in the Premier League – a counter-attacking style could really be a detriment to this. Also, how a team plays in possession of the ball relies on lots of factors, especially personell. The age of the players, the types of strikers available, the quality of the central-midfielders and their ability to get from box-to-box. You also need a holding-midfielder with real presence and tackling ability to protect the back-four when it comes back the other way.
The only ‘successful’ side (by successful I mean breaking the established top 4) currently in the Premiership using a counter-attacking system, in my eyes, is Tottenham – but they have Bale on one wing and Lennon on the other. Both have tons of pace. They also have Parker in the centre of midfield doing all the nasty leg work.
I see what the article is saying – just because Barcelona have been successful doesn’t mean everyone should copy their style. I get that. However, if implemented correctly there is no reason why other sides can’t emulate their style and be profitable from it.
Adding to that, there’s many other systems that can work. For example, long-ball sides that play percentage balls have done well after being promoted.
Great piece.
@Bill Haydon
well you’d have to consider that mourinho’s inter team had the most impeccably organized defensive system that is better than his current Madrid team.
Good article. I think it’s a mistake to attribute Barcelona’s current dominance to their possession “system.” They’ve been playing this way a long time (as have Arsenal and others). Their current run of dominance is due to having 3 of the 4 best players in the world as their attacking spine (Messi, Xavi, Iniesta) and a dominant talent in every position- you could argue that they have a top 3 world player in 7-8 of their starting XI.
But they can be beat, as Inter showed and when Madrid are allowed to play 11 for the entire match. Prior to their current run, they were derided much as Arsenal are- pretty football, no steel or silverware. Without a dominant Messi, Barca were very vulnerable against tactically astute teams with quality (see Benitez’s Liverpool squad’s 2 legged dismantling of Barca in the CL in 2007).
Also, “lesser” teams can play an attacking/pressing possession style- witness Swansea City in the PL this year. As do many, many teams in La Liga- but I’m guessing from the comment this is primarily an EPL crowd.
As for “alternate” systems, the Italians have been winning World Cups and European Cups for a long, long time with cagey, defensive counterattacking style. Same with Mourinho’s Chelsea teams, or Man United’s mid-2000′s teams.
Lastly, no offense but this year’s Spurs play nothing like Barca. Spurs play a classic English “blood and guts” 4-4-2 with 2 central midfielders and 2 pacey wingers crossing to a target man striker and support striker. Barca play a fluid 4-3-3/3-4-3 with 3 central midfielders, Alves for width, 2 strikers and Messi as a false 9.
@Jed
Strange that you don’t mention skill. Their players abillity on the ball and in the 1 agains 1 is better then any other team. When you have players with such good passing abillity and at least 5-6 player that can also beat their man in the 1 vs 1 again and again, i would say your chances become VERY good to win games. Add to that that Barca’s pressing game is one of a kind
Preciously! Well said and accurate. Arsenal has been trying this approach for a while but can’t hold on to players. Theirs is now what appears to be pointless possession.
Good post. Much appreciated.